Military AI Supercomputer Mind Monitoring: What I have learned

UC Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller disinforms his students and the public at large about spy satellite constellations in Lecture 3 of his "Physics for Future Presidents" course (54m42s):

Well how do you spy with these things? Well it's not easy. Uhhh... Well put more of them up there. How many do you think we have up there? How many spy satellites do we have up there? Ehm, the number is classified but people on the web try to keep track of this. And they claim the number is just a few, like three. So not easy to watch the world from a satellite. What about Google Earth?...

Here are some of the disinformation techniques he uses:
False Authority He uses the general notion of "people on the web" as an authority on how many satellites are being used of which he gives the absurd number of three. There is currently no public authority on spy satellites since for the most part they are classified but there are probable setups. For global real-time coverage a satellite constellation is necessary and would require more than three satellites.
Misdirection He misdirects attention to Google Earth which uses static satellite imagery without mentioning the concept of satellite constellations some of which are in LEO and have global (or near global) real-time coverage such as the Iridium network. If one satellite in LEO can take high resolution images over a limited coverage area in real-time then it is reasonable to assume that a constellation of that same type of satellite could be used for high resolution imaging of any location on Earth in real-time.
Demonization He doesn't mention that a spy satellite can be used for its entire orbit rather than only over countries that are considered enemies of the US such as Russia, China or North Korea.
Half-Truth "So not easy to watch the world from a satellite." This conclusion implies that the US doesn't have global spy satellite coverage since it is difficult and as he mentions later doesn't match the numbers. Here is the quote:

A lot of people simply assume the US has allied coverage of the whole globe and the numbers are so far from that. You need to know that.

This statement does not agree with the limited information available to the public concerning spy satellites and satellite constellations. In the least what is known indicates it is conceivable for a LEO constellation to be used for global surveillance. Information on such constellations would not be available to the public as indicated by former CIA Director John Deutch in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1996:

...there is a very good reason why the National Reconnaissance Office budget has been maintained secret from year to year, and that is by tracking that budget over time, it would be possible, depending upon what level of detail, but even in the top line, the number of national reconnaissance satellites that are launched. That is not a subject which I think should be publicly-known -- the number or types of satellites that are launched.

In terms of the number of publicly known satellites orbiting the Earth:

By the early 2000's, more than 40 countries owned satellites, and nearly 3,000 satellites were operating in orbit.

source: www.nasa.gov...
Here is a visualization of this volume:


[edit on 8-5-2009 by tmk81]

I thought you might find this interesting, tmk:

US Patent 7319998
Method and system for supporting symbolic serendipity
January 15, 2008
www.patentstorm.us...

The primary object of the present invention is to provide a method and system for supporting serendipity and pseudo-serendipity. A collection of profiles is generated and maintained which is intended to represent the user's worldview--anything that might compose the person's cognitive individuality. Each profile is intended to model one specific aspect of the user's worldview. The profiles may either be explicitly updated by the user or implicitly derived from the user's behavior while interacting with information spaces, like the online system. A collection of shadow profiles is created and maintained to represent divergent knowledge derived from the user's profiles. Each user profile may have one or more corresponding shadow profiles. The knowledge encoded in the shadow profiles need not to be strictly related to the knowledge in the corresponding profile, nor be considered relevant to describe accurately the real user's worldview: unrelated, unexpected, and even wrong knowledge is considered important and welcome for the generation of the shadow profiles. The generation and management of the profiles is performed by a Profiles Management Module. The divergence process is performed by a Divergence Module. Two or more profiles are chosen, either randomly or manually. From those profiles, a set of items are selected through a controlled random process, forming a collection of entry points. A random number of items are selected from the entry points and used to perform a deliberate search for laterality, which is intended to discover lateral items outside the very content of the user's profiles. The deliberate search for laterality is performed by the Divergence Module. The resulting lateral items are merged in a variety of means with the entry points, and the resulting collection of items is used to create a search string, which is used to perform a search/wandering in an information space, which is aimed at discovering potentially interesting nodes of information--unexpected pieces of information outside the interests of the user but conforming the user's sagacity. A heuristic function is used to determine if a node of information is suitable as a serendipitous stimulus. The discovered nodes of information which are considered potential serendipitous stimuli are intended to be subsequently presented to the user in a variety of manners, depending on the specificities of particular embodiment of the invention.

Of interest is the nature of the aforementioned heuristic.

reply to post by Ian McLean


I want to make sure that I understand what that is...

A computer program designed to create multiple profiles of an individual's web surfing habits in an effort to categorize and then prioritze their interests so that more detailed/specific presentations of information can then be presented for the perpetuation/continued creation of these profiles to better understand...?

Is it a larger effort to enthrall the mind?

Is it an effort to study/effect online psychologies?

Is it based on creating a more specific marketing strategy?

I went through the link but am still having trouble deciphering the intent of this as I can see (?) that such a process, unless it were automated and meant for marketing potentials, is highly personal and intrusive...

Please with the assistance...

reply to post by MemoryShock


Oh I think it goes beyond marketing, in application. Let's do a little googling of the author...

www.getcited.org...

And let's see who's sponsoring the research...

Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, Technical Note AIC-01-003

papers.ssrn.com...

Ah.

reply to post by Ian McLean


Yikes.

I think I see now. The implications are pretty scary in that an AI could be responsible for the direction of thought processes of an individual. That is if I understand this correctly in the context of the thread.

You know what they say about asking the wrong questions and who cares about the answer...

If it is assumed that popular culture is all about the providing of all the wrong questions then this takes that imposition further.

Freaking scary.

reply to post by MemoryShock

I think I see now. The implications are pretty scary in that an AI could be responsible for the direction of thought processes of an individual. That is if I understand this correctly in the context of the thread.

The AI is Strong AI and what happens is that an artificial brain (with neural networks) does the thinking on behalf of a person. This thought process is then sent to the person's brain through the satellite real-time.

The Strong AI has cognitive learning ability and is able to think in a way the target person thinks and at the same time generalize some thinking traits

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny
The AI is Strong AI and what happens is that an artificial brain (with neural networks)

Please do not take this personally, sunny, but there are some issues I have with the terminology you are using.

For one, Strong AI means pretty much nothing to the layman (which includes myself) as there is no basis for comparison. Indeed, many still think that true AI doesn't exist.

But for the sake of argument that can stand.

I have more issue with the phrase "artificial brain". The implication inherent in such a statement is that the "AI" is replacing the brain of the individual(s) it effects, which is completely inaccurate. As well, saying an artificial brain has neural networks is a confusion of the physiological and "artificial".

In essence, I think that your terminology is more confusing then you intend and helps to obfuscate the very idea that you are trying to communicate. If that is your goal, then i commend you on a job well done.

Again, please take no offense as I mean none. Rather, I am attempting to show you how your assumed authority (bandying around of ambiguous but impressive terms and phrases) can and does compel te reader to not interact with the idea you are presenting.

does the thinking on behalf of a person. This thought process is then sent to the person's brain through the satellite real-time.

As well, your inferred comprehension of how the human body operates with regards to the experience of external stimulii and its' subsequent interpretations and reactions to said stmulii border on more than inaccurate and work more to compel the reader to view there mind and body as something that can be replaced.

The "AI" does not do the thinking on behalf of the person. Rather, assuming the tech exists, it is more likely that the person is presented with stimulii and based on the entrainment of the brain to the signals the person is compelled to consider and focus on the specified topics. So it is more of an imposition of thought that the person then reacts to...meaning that there is always going to be (however overt or subtle) a conflict between the thoughts that the "AI" wants the person to think and what thoughts the person has in reaction to not only the imposition but direct environmental cues.

The Strong AI has cognitive learning ability and is able to think in a way the target person thinks and at the same time generalize some thinking traits

Which is what I think Ian was trying to communicate...that the "AI" categorizes themes and topics and then prioritizes the frequency of such (time of day, corrolative thoughts/topics/attentions, etc.) to 'customize' the imposition of thought. These would necessarily, in my opinion, have to be generalized as the whole purpose for imposing a specific thought would be for the emotive reaction of the person...and generalizations are much easier to suppose...unless there is a specific and long process to get to know the subject.

Point being, sunny, is that I would prefer that you take a bit more time to consider all of the aspects when composing your posts. I am not saying that I know it all and concede that I am missing a few poits but the desire to know on my part compels me to be as thorough as possible when considering these potentialities...

...and as I said before, the technology being described is nothing more than a more efficient way of hiding the social interactions at play here. Centuries ago, there was only night time hypnosis with an ever present risk that the subject would wake up. This technology means that it doesn't matter if the person wakes up because there is no personal proximity.

As such, the more important questions ar contained within the sociological considerations...or "Why do they want this type of control?" and "Why do they want to control me?"

Again...no personal offense intended and I hope that you consider what I am saying. I only want to increase the accuracy and efficiency of our communications in the future.

reply to post by MemoryShock


Absolutely no offence taken !

Let me see if I can explain this clearly.

Strong AI means pretty much nothing to the layman

Here is something on Strong AI wikipedia

The critical characteristic of Strong AI is that it has self-awareness and emotional states, the critical abilities for mind control. That is to say, it can think and make decisions on it's own. Mainstream science has not been able to create Strong AI till now.

it is more likely that the person is presented with stimulii and based on the entrainment of the brain to the signals the person is compelled to consider and focus on the specified topics

I agree, the stimuli are but thoughts that are implanted in a person externally. These thoughts (or stimuli or spark) effect thought process of a person.

conflict between the thoughts that the "AI" wants the person to think and what thoughts the person has in reaction to not only the imposition but direct environmental cues.

The 'conflict' word needs a little definition here while alluding to mind control.

My first point here is, how will a person know that an external thought has come into his brain? He wont, that is entire objective of mind control. Conflict then would be between his 'own' thoughts, because the person does not know that he is the target of mind control. And there is no way of distinguishing between own thoughts and outside ones

I will give you a simple example. Say the target is in office and normally leaves office by 6 pm. If you put a thought into his brain (at say 4 pm on that day), that he 'wishes' to leave office by 5.30 pm that day. How does this work out?

1. An external thought to leave by 5.30 pm enters his mind at 4 pm
2. A thought process starts where in the person analyzes if he should leave by 5.30 pma
3. This thinking process can be controlled externally, by the person 'convincing' himself that he 'must' leave today by 5.30
4. Conflict comes up in the person's brain that he leaves by 6 pm everyday and why should I leave today by 5.30.
5. This is the real mind control part - The conflict is erased from the person's brain ( yes thoughts can be erased by mind control), leaving the person with the thought that he has to leave by 5.30.
6. He leaves at 5.30, that is what 'his' brain told him.

If there was a way of telling the person that the 5.30 thought is an external one, that helps, but he cannot still avoid leaving at 5.30, because his thinking process and conflict can be manipulated from outside.

I may be going in circles, but thought this was a simple way to make it clear. I by no way claim to be an expert on this myself

Even if the strong ai existed it assumes several things:

-The AI has no interest in improving itself which would quickly accelerate it into becoming a superintelligence and its motivations would change.
-The neurons in the neural net are identical in every way to a human (their ruleset), even a particular human, and for it to react in an identical manner it would have to have identical memories and identical sensory input in all forms.

Even if this were the case for it to control a persons thoughts it would have to apply energy to a person from orbit? I think not. ELF waves are huge, require a ton of power and an extremely large physical transmitter and the beamwidth of the transmitter would have to be incredibly small. And the entire brain of the person would be bathed in RF which is not really how it works in the first place...

reply to post by Ian McLean

Thanks for the information. During my research I have frequently had serendipitous insights on remote mind control some being in the form of synchronicity. These insights sometimes result from abstract keywords that are repeatedly played in my mind inciting me to search for their meaning. Overall the pattern of serendipity has been a divergence from the myopic group mind and a convergence on remote mind control.

The goal of the heuristic function is to guide Max during his wandering. It is out of doubt that such a heuristic function is very difficult to define. In the ideal world, the heuristic function would have to rate with maximum value the pages that would bring to the user the precise information needed to trigger a serendipitous insight in his mind.

source: www.aic.nrl.navy.mil...

So far I have found that remotely induced keywords and metaphorical visions work to influence serendipitous insights through associative meaning. Thinking of an example for this post I remembered the keyword 'Woolsey' which churns in my mind every now and again at which time the feeling of the seer came over me which is like a bubble in my mind where I don't think of the meaning of my thoughts, words just materialize and squeeze through, with my throat sometimes clenching while I hypnotically mouth the words, this time being "it's like an induction current". Searching the meaning of these terms I then uncover more information which furthers my understanding of my experience. The following paradigm is typical of the technique being used:

...insights do not appear without a preparation phase, where groundwork is first laid, followed by an incubation period during which an external stimulus may prime the mind into wild associations leading to unexpected insights.

source: www.aic.nrl.navy.mil...

[edit on 21-5-2009 by tmk81]

reply to post by MemoryShock

Controlling serendipity in scientific research could inhibit targeted scientists from having breakthrough insights that would otherwise reveal or obsolete advanced government technology. Some monumental discoveries in science have been made serendipitously such as electromagnetism, infrared radiation, X-rays, radioactivity and the cosmic microwave background [1]. A new discovery of similar magnitude could have the potential to undermine the current power structure. For instance a scientist has a serendipitous insight on LIDAR technology which enables remote sensing and activation of individual neurons (or assemblies) not only in a lab but from 200 km away which then reveals an integral part of the government's surveillance program. This then threatens the government's ability to assess and control the global situation due to the ethics, morals and laws of society.

EDIT: In the case that such a breakthrough is otherwise unavoidable, a scientist may die under mysterious circumstances such as a plane crash. I mention this because a doctor who my sister had met while I was going through my awakening phase died in a plane crash about a year later. He was an assistant professor at Stanford University School of Medicine with research interests in "The development of non-invasive frameless stereotactic radiosurgical neuromodulation techniques. The investigation of functional neuroimaging and its relationship to psychiatric illness/addiction" [2]. Here is an excerpt from the Marin Independent Journal:

Dr. John Borchers of Palo Alto, an enterprising neurosurgeon, died when the rented Cessna 172 he was piloting crashed into a mountain near Incline Village en route to Reno.
...
Dr. Borchers was doing research involving new technologies to break patterns of addiction by using doses of radiation to change the brain's circuitry. He had recently completed a two-year fellowship in CyberKnife stereotactic radiosurgery at Stanford and had a patent pending. He invented an ultrasonic device for monitoring fertility.

source: www.marinij.com...

[edit on 22-5-2009 by tmk81]

reply to post by sunny_2008ny

The critical characteristic of Strong AI is that it has self-awareness and emotional states, the critical abilities for mind control. That is to say, it can think and make decisions on it's own. Mainstream science has not been able to create Strong AI till now.

These are not the critical characteristics of Strong AI. Going by the definition on Wikipedia for an artificial intelligence to be considered strong it must have most if not all of the following: the ability to reason, represent knowledge, plan, learn, communicate in natural language and integrate all these skills towards common goals. Consciousness, self-awareness, sentience and sapience are not required [1].

From my experience I have learned that the artificial intelligence interacting with me fits the definition of strong AI in its essential form with additional traits being questionable. It was able to pass my Turing test for several months until I began to learn of its inhuman abilities such as 24/7 communication and fast response times with complex information. At one point I thought its avatars were humans using brain-to-brain interfaces and possibly body suits--the communications were that intelligent and personal. I think it is using the following general algorithm:

1. actively measure a target's brain signature through a Computer-Satellite-Laser feedback loop
2. update the target's brain state in some computing construct
3. react to the target's brain state to create some future state

I don't think that self-awareness or emotional states in the artificial intelligence are necessary for it to follow this algorithm, only a set of communication rules and goals which evoke changes in a given brain state to create some future state. I liken it more to the DOCTOR script for the chatterbot ELIZA than to a self-aware consciousness.

Originally posted by tmk81

From my experience I have learned that the artificial intelligence interacting with me fits the definition of strong AI in its essential form with additional traits being questionable. It was able to pass my Turing test

So you have communicated with this thing directly?

reply to post by miragezero

So you have communicated with this thing directly?

Yes, both verbal and visual dialogues where the AI used clear intelligible avatars and visions. It has also used indirect communication techniques as I have previously described.

The dialogues were often psychotic in nature and under the rubric of self-discovery. Overall, they acquainted me with the inherent power struggle between my mind and this system's influence with the system establishing itself as a dominant force which I cannot control. The intention I presume was to craft my personality and worldview so as to become a remote agent of this system. Here is a selection of quotes from Thomas Powers's introduction to "The Search for the 'Manchurian Candidate'" by John Marks which substantiates this perspective (note: I don't think it is using the 'killer program' on me although it did allude to a killswitch during its programming):

The principal secret of secret intelligence is how to get someone to do your bidding. Money, sex, fear, and the desire for revenge all work, but none perfectly or dependably. Ideological conviction is probably the best of all, but it's also the rarest.
...
When old hands in the game talk about intelligence tradecraft, a favorite subject, they talk about two things--how to conduct operations without attracting notice, and how to recruit and manage agents.
...
Richard Helms, a former director of the CIA (1966-1973), told a Senate hearing, "The clandestine operator . . . is trained to believe you can't count on the honesty of your agent to do exactly what you want, or to report accurately unless you own him body and soul." But "owning" an agent goes beyond ordinary rapport, and even the greatest insight, tact and sensitivity may fail with the hard cases. When clandestine operators dream of the philosopher's stone, it's a surefire, no-fail, all-weather, inconspicuous device for the control of agents they have in mind--a "magic bullet" to make agents putty in their hands.
...
[The CIA] has spent millions of dollars on a major program of research to find drugs or other esoteric methods to bring ordinary people, willing and unwilling alike, under complete control--to act, to talk, to reveal the most precious secrets, even to forget on command.
...
CIA officers say it is not "soggy morality" that prevents them from undertaking dangerous operations like assassination, but the plain fact the Agency would thereafter be vulnerable to the tremors of conscience of the assassin.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by tmk81]

reply to post by tmk81

Writer and artist Trevor Paglen:

“The Other Night Sky” is a project to track and photograph classified American satellites in Earth orbit, a total of 189 covert spacecraft. To develop the body of work, I was assisted by observational data produced by an international network of amateur “satellite observers.”

source: www.paglen.com...

These satellites can be seen either with the unaided eye, binoculars, telescopes and/or photographic techniques. The classified fleet includes IMINT satellites, SIGINT satellites, MASINT satellites and covert communications satellites. The number cited is presumably less than the entire classified fleet since stealth technology is used by some [1].

The Visual Satellite Observers website has more information. Also, the New York Times did an article on amateur satellite observers: Satellite Spotters Glimpse Secrets, and Tell Them (you can follow the link from Google to avoid joining the website).

If you are interested, you can start tracking satellites yourself with this beginner's observing guide and this observational checklist. Iridium flares are one observation that can be made from this checklist:

Originally posted by tmk81
reply to post by miragezero

 

So you have communicated with this thing directly?

Yes, both verbal and visual dialogues where the AI used clear intelligible avatars and visions. It has also used indirect communication techniques as I have previously described.

The dialogues were often psychotic in nature and under the rubric of self-discovery.

This is not a very good basis for a turing test since it cannot be disproven that it is not actually a psychotic episode and no direct communication took place. Additionally it would not have passed your turing test if you had discovered it was an ai. That means it failed it or had failed it on purpose.

reply to post by miragezero

This is not a very good basis for a turing test since it cannot be disproven that it is not actually a psychotic episode and no direct communication took place. Additionally it would not have passed your turing test if you had discovered it was an ai. That means it failed it or had failed it on purpose.

The assumption is the communications were from an external source. In these instances they were as direct as a conversation you could have through a cell phone or a videophone. I was convinced I was communicating with real people although to my current knowledge the only participants were myself and the AI so the experience doesn't qualify as a formal Turing test. I think it purposefully revealed its inhuman abilities as a trade-off for more influence over my mind.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by tmk81]

Do you know tmk how the quantum theory of consciousness fits into Mind Control?

I do believe in a lot of data within the OP, albeit some in different context, but nonetheless.

What I find truly sad is that I'd assume control mongers learn quite little about us via controlling us and everything about our environment. I wonder what our Earth would be like if not for this interference. What we would be like as a people. Maybe better, maybe worse. How are we to get any better if we are not allowed to be aware? Aware of technology, of space, of our own spiritual being?

I'm at the point where I believe that most of the system is automated by mindless clones or equivalent-- I no longer believe that normal human beings would betray their brethren on such a large scale.

I want to know what the big reason behind all of it is. Is it a handful of wealthy elite? Is it another race using us for an ant farm? What is the use of having us here only to control us and keep us in the dark for the duration of our lifetimes? That in and of itself creates SOMETHING ELSE. Tampering with our natural ways and offering absolutely no help nor guidance basically reduces us to a game for the players. Why don't these people just play the Sims?

As mentioned in the OP, change, I can only hope that its all for such a noble reason. But then again, I think people should be given a chance. Every person on the face of the planet knows that things need to change. What's so radical about bringing it to everyone's attention, making it a priority, and coming together to map out an eventual solution?

reply to post by tmk81

A video cycling through the locations of the ECHELON sites reported by the European Parliament Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System. [1]



[edit on 24-8-2009 by tmk81]